The Guardian view on MPs crossing the floor: a
triumph of political theatre over substance
Editorial
Natalie Elphicke is not a comfortable fit for Labour,
but her defection is eloquent in expressing the decline of Rishi Sunak’s Tories
Wed 8 May
2024 18.31 BST
Surveying
recent election losses, some Conservatives have concluded that the problem is a
deficit of radical Conservatism – a prospectus defined by commitment to always
cutting taxes, public spending and immigration. Natalie Elphicke would once
have been considered a likely proponent of that approach, but on Wednesday the
MP for Dover expressed her frustration with Rishi Sunak’s leadership by moving
in a very different direction – to cross the Commons floor and join Labour.
Ms
Elphicke’s politics, rooted on the hard right of her former party, gave no
indication of propensity for conversion to Keir Starmer’s creed. Setting policy
differences aside, some Labour MPs are queasy about the concerted effort their
new colleague put into supporting Charlie Elphicke, her predecessor in the
Dover seat and now ex-husband, when he faced allegations of sexual assault –
offences for which he was jailed.
Ms Elphicke
was among a group of MPs whose lobbying of a judge in the case was deemed a
breach of the code of conduct by the parliamentary regulator. Had her defection
not come with a commitment to stand down at the next general election, there
would be difficult questions to answer about her suitability as a Labour
candidate.
Meanwhile,
with three Tory MPs switching to other parties so far this year – two to
Labour, one to Reform – the question animating Conservative benches is who
might be next. The losses do not substantially affect parliamentary arithmetic.
The impact is on morale. Opposition leaders tend not to be overly
discriminating in accepting defectors, partly because they want to advertise
the breadth of their appeal across the political spectrum, but mostly because
the mere fact of an MP switching sides suggests political momentum. And for an
incumbent administration, it is a reliable indicator of irreversible rot.
Ms
Elphicke’s record might not make her a natural fit with Labour, but the terms
in which she justified the decision were crafted with precision to match the
opposition’s lines of attack on Mr Sunak – that he is untrustworthy,
ineffective and weak. It was a political coup de théâtre, which left the prime
minister looking visibly deflated in the Commons.
Such things
matter more in the hothouse atmosphere of Westminster than beyond. In the
bigger picture, winning the allegiance of former Tory voters is an essential
stage on the journey from opposition to power, and recruiting sitting Tory MPs
sends an effective signal that the doors are open. But appearing to pay almost
no heed to the credentials of the recruit sits at odds with the opposition’s
function in presenting voters with a clear alternative to the government.
Voters like
broad-church parties but they also need a sense of those parties’ principles,
and where the boundaries lie. Adding one more Labour seat at Tory expense
without even requiring a byelection is a gift Sir Keir might have felt he could
hardly refuse. Yet he might, when the flurry of excitement has died down, pause
to consider how well his new MP embodies the values he intends to bring to
office.
That is a
luxuriant problem to have compared with the challenge the prime minister now
faces. Defections rarely express irresistible attraction to a new party. The
motor force is repulsion away from the old one. Ms Elphicke’s decision says
very little about Labour, but it is eloquent in casting Mr Sunak’s party as a
lost cause.
Editorial
Natalie Elphicke is not a comfortable fit for Labour,
but her defection is eloquent in expressing the decline of Rishi Sunak’s Tories
Wed 8 May
2024 18.31 BST
Surveying
recent election losses, some Conservatives have concluded that the problem is a
deficit of radical Conservatism – a prospectus defined by commitment to always
cutting taxes, public spending and immigration. Natalie Elphicke would once
have been considered a likely proponent of that approach, but on Wednesday the
MP for Dover expressed her frustration with Rishi Sunak’s leadership by moving
in a very different direction – to cross the Commons floor and join Labour.
Ms
Elphicke’s politics, rooted on the hard right of her former party, gave no
indication of propensity for conversion to Keir Starmer’s creed. Setting policy
differences aside, some Labour MPs are queasy about the concerted effort their
new colleague put into supporting Charlie Elphicke, her predecessor in the
Dover seat and now ex-husband, when he faced allegations of sexual assault –
offences for which he was jailed.
Ms Elphicke
was among a group of MPs whose lobbying of a judge in the case was deemed a
breach of the code of conduct by the parliamentary regulator. Had her defection
not come with a commitment to stand down at the next general election, there
would be difficult questions to answer about her suitability as a Labour
candidate.
Meanwhile,
with three Tory MPs switching to other parties so far this year – two to
Labour, one to Reform – the question animating Conservative benches is who
might be next. The losses do not substantially affect parliamentary arithmetic.
The impact is on morale. Opposition leaders tend not to be overly
discriminating in accepting defectors, partly because they want to advertise
the breadth of their appeal across the political spectrum, but mostly because
the mere fact of an MP switching sides suggests political momentum. And for an
incumbent administration, it is a reliable indicator of irreversible rot.
Ms
Elphicke’s record might not make her a natural fit with Labour, but the terms
in which she justified the decision were crafted with precision to match the
opposition’s lines of attack on Mr Sunak – that he is untrustworthy,
ineffective and weak. It was a political coup de théâtre, which left the prime
minister looking visibly deflated in the Commons.
Such things
matter more in the hothouse atmosphere of Westminster than beyond. In the
bigger picture, winning the allegiance of former Tory voters is an essential
stage on the journey from opposition to power, and recruiting sitting Tory MPs
sends an effective signal that the doors are open. But appearing to pay almost
no heed to the credentials of the recruit sits at odds with the opposition’s
function in presenting voters with a clear alternative to the government.
Voters like
broad-church parties but they also need a sense of those parties’ principles,
and where the boundaries lie. Adding one more Labour seat at Tory expense
without even requiring a byelection is a gift Sir Keir might have felt he could
hardly refuse. Yet he might, when the flurry of excitement has died down, pause
to consider how well his new MP embodies the values he intends to bring to
office.
That is a
luxuriant problem to have compared with the challenge the prime minister now
faces. Defections rarely express irresistible attraction to a new party. The
motor force is repulsion away from the old one. Ms Elphicke’s decision says
very little about Labour, but it is eloquent in casting Mr Sunak’s party as a
lost cause.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário